I agree with much of what you said and I think there is a 3rd option.

I think the biggest problem for transformationalism is the fact that Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. They attempt to "reclaim the crown rights of Christ" but they fail to see Christ never lost his crown.

On the other hand, I think the biggest problem for the 2 kingdoms view is their view of special revelation. I have seen an unhealthy and unbiblical view of special revleation to the point of ridiculing a father who desires to determine what "biblical child rearing" is. The sacred/secular wall they throw up is very hindering to the Christian life.

My problem with their view of general revelation is that they think it communicates something special revelation does not. General revelation is given first and foremost to condemn. It does not contain anything that is not also contained in Scripture, thus the idea that Christ governs the secular world through general revelation and the sacred world through special revelation is incoherent.

If you have any interest in seeing this objection fleshed out against 2 kingdomites, you can read a good interaction at "Bring the Books"

Is Transformationism Postmillenial?

Two Kingdoms: Natural Law

Be careful we are not vesting authority in the practical abuses of doctrine.

We are sinful. So whatever the doctrines we hold, each comes with positional dispositions toward certain abuses. For example, in your post you said that abuse of the Two Kingdom view may lead to an "unwillingness to boldly call Christians to work for positive change in their communities and believe that some change is possible."

This is absolutely a possible abuse. To hold a "Two Kingdoms" view is by position to be predisposed to this possibility. The Neo-Kuyperian will not be tempted in this way since his doctrine doesn't allow for it. His doctrine clearly demands that Christians seek to change their culture and communities.

We ought to be aware of these possible abuses so as to be on gaurd against them, while being careful not to vest authority in them as though because a doctrine be abused it is not true. If it were appropriate for us to measure the veracity of any doctrine this way, no doctrine could stand as all have, in time, seen their abuses.

The bible is the final authority. If you want to argue for or against, make your case from the scriptures. To do otherwise is neither right nor safe. This is Satan's way of confusing the church.

Why do you think that so many churches, for example, have avoided teaching on the Holy Spirit? Many Christians hardly know of this person of the Trinity at all. Why? Because we have all seen abuses in charismatic churches that have scared us away from the topic completely. Tozer says its as though Satan captured a crow feeding in the field of God and killed it, and strung it up. Then he called together all the other crows and said, "Hey, you see that crow over there? I'd stay out of that field if I were you, lest you become like him."

There will always be abuses in the church. All the more reason to derive our doctrine from God's word and hold it firmly despite them.

Yet, we see, too, how a Christian is no separatist within the culture God plants them. They are to witness and strive in words and deeds, affirming their common ground with humanity, yet calling people to faith, seeking excellence in humility in their endeavors, yet seeing how some are more vital than others.

I disagree with #1 who, on the one hand, espoused a mandaate for "art, politics and science" yet played down such a impetus applied to "recovery ministries" and "philanthropic endeavours". Surely that is a false choice, given how one relies upon the other to substantiate its claim and activity (i.e., good science adds its share of information to help understand people's bio-behavior in recovery ministries). Further recovery ministries can be a key part in the churches commitment to the whole person, helping them out of ruts and damaged conditions of life and false thinking to become active as Christ-centered vessels for the kingdom. That is all part of affirming the physical as well as the spiritual in salvation pointed towards a new heavens and new earth.

Take the Peacemakers ministry under Ken Sande, which heals relationships among churches, families and marriages for instance! Not much discipleship happens or improvement in their cultural field without that Gospel application for the unity of soul and church. Is is not a mandate also to be peacemakers for recovery?

The mandate is not merely applied to structural and cultural spheres in the abstract, as in politics elevated above human recovery of lives enslaved by addiction, which is made into a political issue anyway to how culture is elevated and changed. Addiction relief is as important as urban renewal as political stability through the church and the gospel (message and scope). They are, in the wider mandate for Christian truth, witness and influence, very much integrated and overlapped in the early and final composition of the whole matter.

Thank you also for bringing up the example of the church having an adoption and addition recovery ministry as a means to pointing to the gospel. For that very reason, and the fact that it reflects the heart of God, I think these types of ministries are needed in the church! In fact, more than just a ministry I believe they should be a part of the very culture of the church.

Dave, you say these are "philanthropic endeavours" but not a part of the mandate of the church as an institution. What would you base that on biblically? James 1:27 says "religion that is pure and undefiled before the father is this, to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained from the world." It seems to me that the thrust of James’ statement is not that these things are merely to be encouraged by the church and prayed for but that they are to be at the very heart of who we are as the church and people of God. I think many would not argue that "keeping oneself unstained from the world" is a part of the churches mandate. But in this context that is only part of what “true religion” looks like.

James really gets this from the Old Testament and the many places that God makes clear His heart towards the poor and the fatherless and commands His people to do the same. He makes it so clear that that Jonathan Edwards said there is no clearer or more plainly laid out command in all of scripture. Jesus himself backs this up by His example of preaching to the poor and healing the poor. He says that “whatever we do for the least of these” we have done to Him. All this leads me (among many other biblical reasons) to believe that adoption/orphan ministry is indeed a part of the mandate of the church.

As far as addiction recovery ministries, the mandate of the church is to make disciples by the power of the gospel. I see that as the only foundation and hope for successful recovery from addiction. The church has the best resources to help those addicted; the gospel, a loving community, and a common mission.

I love the para-church (I work for one), but I also believe the more we as the para-church can support the church (and not the other way around) the greater the impact we can make for the cause of the Gospel, the good of man, and the glory of God.

I would love to hear your thoughts back on these things!

And if we are strangers and pilgrims (which we are), what about Isaac and David who also were strangers and pilgrims while they were scaring the daylights out of Philistines?